Hillary Clinton Embraces Ideas From Bernie Sanders’s College Tuition Plan

[ksu_aviator]

Piffle. You are pretending something that might happen only in a down economy as has indeed occurred since the Great Recession. The next Great Recession (if not a Depression) will not take 120 years to repeat itself if it follows itself historically. Another two generations will do nicely, since history in America is what happened 5 minutes ago and ancient history was yesterday. So, 120 years go is what happened on some other planet.

You didn't say anything here.

Moreover, and far more importantly, those who are educated historically not only earn more but much more. From the Census Bureau:
View attachment 67203970

And given this breakdown, nonsense such as "... if the percentage of people that obtain a degree goes up, the amount of money that a degree holder will earn will go down" has never happened except at times when "all incomes descended due to a Great Depression". In fact, in our own Great Recession, the hardest impacted were also the poorest.

So you know what the relationship between supply and demand is? If you increase the number of people with basic or advanced degrees, you'll see a stagnation or depression in their wages. It is inevitable. Since the advent of free trade agreements, our wages have not kept pace with inflation. Changing the education level of the common worker won't fix that problem. This is a typical Democratic Party response. Ignore the problem and treat the symptoms.

Those with a postsecondary degree were also affected, since the causes for layoffs were widespread:
*Normal productivity loss due to lesser demand for goods/services.
*Offshoring of those production jobs that were too expensive to compete with the China Price, and
*Firing disguised as lay-offs (where the motive varies but includes the above and it is generalized in an industry, as in automotive.

But, this group was also the one that came back most strongly. Median income during the Great Recession suffered across the spectrum except in the top decile (10Percenters). But it came back fastest in the upper-income groups that tend to be the more skills/competency related and therefore higher-salaried. This conclusion from a study entitled: Heterogeneity in the Impact of Economic Cycles and the Great R
Effects Within and Across the Income Distribution

None of that has anything to do with today's economy. What do you think you are saying?

 

[Lafayette]

If you increase the number of people with basic or advanced degrees, you'll see a stagnation or depression in their wages. It is inevitable.

This above statement is either ignorance or bad-judgment.

The historical economic facts are quite against the notion. A depression in wages, as begun in 2008 (the Great Recession), happens first and foremost at the bottom of the skills-ladder. That is, the poorest element of our society always suffer first from a recessionary economic context.

Those with higher-level jobs are also affected but not nearly comparably. And frankly, that will perhaps never change.

Come a recession, it is always the bottom rungs of the economic ladder that take the hit first and those at the top who take the hit last. The economic consequence is therefore highly disproportionate.

And since we are all in this market-economy together, it is only fair that those who have enough who should pay (at least subsistence) for those that do not.

Furthermore, a study into the matter of "Who joins Military Service in the US?" (see here) concludes this:

This article discusses the history of participation of the three largest racial–
ethnic groups in the military: whites, blacks, and Latinos. It empirically examines
the likelihood of ever having served in the military across a variety of
criteria including race–ethnicity, immigrant generation, and socioeconomic
status, concluding that significant disparities exist only by socioeconomic status

 

[Lafayette]

Even f you raised it to 50? It wouldn't cover the cost. As I said Bernie comes up a lot short on his ideas

What cost of raising taxation? The only "cost" is diminished aberrant income that becomes Wealth that (minus Debt) becomes Net Worth of the super-rich. (Of which they already own the "lion's share of the take".)

Yes, as you keep saying, and without the slightest element of proof or corroboration ...

Reading for those interested in the matter of Social Class and Affluence, from WikiP:
*The American Upper-class - Social Class and Income
*Affluence in the United States
*Net Worth in the US infographic.

The signs are there, and the rich are trying to "paper-over" the gross differences in affluence that have occurred in the US ...
__________________________

 

[Abbazorkzog]

She's not going to fulfill any of her campaign promises, I hope ya'll realize this. She'll focus on military expansionism and leave Americans back home in the dust.

 

[Lafayette]

She's not going to fulfill any of her campaign promises, I hope ya'll realize this. She'll focus on military expansionism and leave Americans back home in the dust.

Pure speculation ... give the lady a chance.

Or, vote the Dunderhead and regret it forever ...

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Pure speculation ... give the lady a chance.

Or, vote the Dunderhead and regret it forever ...

/None of this.

 

[Lafayette]

/None of this.

Then what ... ?
________________

 

[Lafayette]

Furthermore, a study into the matter of "Who joins Military Service in the US?" (see here) concludes this:

Meaning what?

Meaning that these are the individuals most likely to "die for their country". Certainly not the sons and daughters of the wealthy.

We make cannon-fodder out of the poorest elements of our society. Where is there the social-justice in that outcome ... ?
_______________________

 

[ludin]

So by saying some will hold their value, you are admitting that others will lose their value. Why do you support a policy that will reduce the income of the middle class?

Has an armorsmith lost his value?
All things lose value at some point when they get outdated that is the way of the
Economy. New skills rise up to take heir place.

You still are not reading what I was responding to.
If you choose to remain informed of what I was talking about
Then that is not my problem.

 

[ludin]

Pure speculation ... give the lady a chance.

Or, vote the Dunderhead and regret it forever ...

Why should I give either one of them a chance they are both morons that
Shouldn't qualify.

Hillary has proven herself inept at governing.

 

[jonny5]

Hillary Clinton Embraces Ideas From Bernie Sanders’s College Tuition Plan



Wow. So she got that idea from Bernie?

Wonder where he got that idea from?

Europe, that's where - every EU country offers free tertiary education. Every damn one, all 28 ...

NB: Next step, Universal Health Care - which will put America on a par with the EU. Finally, 22 years after "Harry and Louise". After all, why not, if Congress gets a total Health Care package free, gratis and for nothing ... ?
__________________

Because I dont need it. So why should I pay for something I dont need?

 

[Lafayette]

Because I dont need it. So why should I pay for something I dont need?

Uh, some people call it "insurance". As in, National Health Insurance.

And when you will need it, you'll really want it ...
______________________

 

[jonny5]

Uh, some people call it "insurance". As in, National Health Insurance.

And when you will need it, you'll really want it ...
______________________

I have my own insurance/HMO already. Why should I pay for another one?

 

[Lafayette]

I have my own insurance/HMO already. Why should I pay for another one?

It would be less expensive if part of a National Health Insurance scheme.

You are being fleeced by Private Insurance companies.
_________________________

 

[jonny5]

It would be less expensive if part of a National Health Insurance scheme.

You are being fleeced by Private Insurance companies.
_________________________

Not less expensive for me. Im healthy and dont use my healthcare very much. And Im happy with the cost and return. And if I wasnt, I could choose one of their competitors. Can you say the same of your idea to force me onto your plan?

 

[Lafayette]

Not less expensive for me. Im healthy and dont use my healthcare very much. And Im happy with the cost and return. And if I wasnt, I could choose one of their competitors. Can you say the same of your idea to force me onto your plan?

First of all, it seems like the choice of HealthCare System is "all about you". Not much I can say to that. Where I live, it's all about "us".

Secondly, you seem to think there is "competition" in HealthCare services. There's isn't much. In any given state, two, three or four insurance companies have settled into what economists call "sticky pricing". Meaning the followers price slightly lower than the dominant insurer thus allowing fat-margins for everybody. From here: Managed HealthCare Executive, excerpt:

A NEW ANNUAL STUDY by the American Medical Association (AMA) has found that 72% of U.S. metropolitan areas studied lack significant competition for health insurance, and most were highly concentrated.

The study - Competition in Health Insurance: A Comprehensive Study of U.S. Markets - looked for evidence of highly concentrated areas because they can lead to insurers exercising "market power" including controlling price.

The study found that 17 states have a single health insurer with a commercial market share of 50% or more, and 45 states have two health insurers with a combined commercial market share of 50% or more.

In 90% percent of metropolitan areas, just one insurer holds at least a 30% share of the commercial health insurance market.

A National HealthCare System has no "plan". You are covered from birth-to-death by universal insurance that is inexpensive compared to that which exists today, and your company - instead of paying an expensive cost to private insurance companies - would contribute a far smaller amount to the Dept. of Health that runs the program Federally. (Btw, an identical HC-program is offered to the PotUS, Chambers of Congress and the Supreme Court.)

Why is the cost lower? Because the National Health System mandates the treatment costs and sets salaries, but also fines hospitals that "bloat treatments" in order to enhance revenues - because as private concerns they have to show a profit).

HealthCare is not like selling BigMacs or Buicks competitively. You are spending twice per capita in the US that of the Europeans for precisely the same level of HC-services rendered. Meaning tax revenues in Europe go further in obtaining services important to families than in the US. For instance, a free postsecondary education (vocational, 2- or 4-year).

I am a strong believer in a capitalist Market-economy, but not for either HealthCare or Education. They are far too important to all of us to be offered by (supposedly) "competing" market forces.
__________________

 

[jonny5]

First of all, it seems like the choice of HealthCare System is "all about you". Not much I can say to that. Where I live, it's all about "us".

Stop right there. You dont live here. Problem solved. Its a win win.

 

[Lafayette]

The American way will be for someone like silicon valley to create such great online virtual courses orders of magnitude better in quality and fun than traditional brick and mortar education at the price of an i-tune that allows like 99.9% of the people and taxpayers to not have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on education.

Sweet dream, that one.

Computers can aid learning, they are not substitute teachers.
_____________________________

 

[Lafayette]

IIt is not the duty of the government to redistribute wealth from those who have earned it to those that haven't earned it.

We don't earn wealth. We earn Income, which is taxed. And if a country has grossly unfair upper-income taxation in the form of a flat-tax at a low rate of 30%, then, yes, Wealth is grossly unfair.

All I am doing is pointing a finger at the gross inequality in the taxation system instituted by Reckless Ronnnie. One that I feel is largely responsible for the kind of social unrest that is fomenting at this very moment across the country. And I insist that it is due to the Replicant Party that insists on No Change Whatsoever - the rich get richer and the poor can go to hell.

Do we need another Watts Conflagration in five major cities across the country to understand what is going on? If MLK were to return to America to see what is happening to his people, he would cry himself a river.

Income discrimination according to race is grossly unfair, and some people (on this forum) think that megabuck-winners are OK - because they worked "so hard" to get make it big. What conceit!

See the breakdown in national income reported by the Census Bureau by race here:


Only corrective government policy can change that unfair pattern of Income showing the two major ethnicities both earning much less than the national average. Which is why a decent Minimum Wage is absolutely indispensable in the country.

And it had better be sooner than later ...
_______________________________

 

[laska]

Sweet dream, that one.

Computers can aid learning, they are not substitute teachers.
_____________________________

I didn't say it would eliminate all live teachers. Under my plan it would assist them. I see the online university being used in brick and mortar schools. It will change the way a lot of live teachers teach. I do think for many people, much of their academic work could be strictly virtual university on steroids. And it will be much higher quality education, learned much faster, at a tiny fraction of the cost. At a typical brick and mortar live class, what you go to a class few times a week, hear a lecture, maybe a short classroom discussion, and then get homework. An online class you can watch a lecture designed by the best teachers in the world put forth in a very entertaining way, and you can watch it anytime you want, pause it, rewind and re-listen to it as many times as you want. To aid the discussion you can have graphics. for example if you are learning about engines you can have amazing graphics where you see every moving part, allow a person to visualize it. imagine what that can do for courses such as chemistry. For a class room discussion those enrolled can have skype discussions, chat rooms, message boards where there could be teachers answering and other students answering questions. Most students in a live class are too shy to ask and answer questions, so even this will be superior in many ways. People can go at their own pace. Online education is already here. Someone just needs to take it to the next level, get the best teachers, video game designers, story tellers, entertainers, etc. And a large platform with hundreds of millions of users can easily make the courses cheap, like 99 cent cheap. For example an accounting 101 course that cost a few million to design could have 30 million users a year at .99 each, every year for several years, with updates now and then. It's a joke how high text books and education are. Need a disrupter, an Elon Musk for the online education world. May save us from crappy education and national bankruptcy. Give order of magnitude better education to the masses for a penny on the dollar.

 

[laska]

And let me say truly great course designers will make education as fun as the most addictive video games or TV shows. Several options to cover most tastes and learning styles.

 

[eohrnberger]

We don't earn wealth. We earn Income, which is taxed. And if a country has grossly unfair upper-income taxation in the form of a flat-tax at a low rate of 30%, then, yes, Wealth is grossly unfair.

Income, once earned and not spent becomes wealth. There is nothing about wealth that is unfair, unless you want everyone to be poor, which seems to be the case with some of the legislation / regulation that some administrations and legislatures has passed. Does not everyone deserve to keep the rewards of the hard won and hard earned income / wealth?

All I am doing is pointing a finger at the gross inequality in the taxation system instituted by Reckless Ronnnie. One that I feel is largely responsible for the kind of social unrest that is fomenting at this very moment across the country. And I insist that it is due to the Replicant Party that insists on No Change Whatsoever - the rich get richer and the poor can go to hell.

"poor can go to hell" is leftists unfairly and inaccurately putting words into the mouth of conservatives. It's a load a BS. My view of conservatism is that earn waht you have and what you get, and for the vast majority or the people this is the case. You want to earn more, increase the value of your contribution.

Do we need another Watts Conflagration in five major cities across the country to understand what is going on?

Err. No.

On August 11, 1965, an African-American motorist was arrested for drunk driving. A minor roadside argument broke out, and then escalated into a fight. The community reacted in outrage. Six days of looting and arson followed. Los Angeles police needed the support of nearly 4,000 members of the California Army National Guard to quell the riots, which resulted in 34 deaths[SUP][2][/SUP] and over $40 million in property damage. The riots were blamed principally on police racism. It was the city's worst unrest until the Rodney King riots of 1992.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_riots

The Watts riots didn't have anything to do with income, wealth, and wealth redistribution. Got that one wrong there sunshine.

If MLK were to return to America to see what is happening to his people, he would cry himself a river.

Income discrimination according to race is grossly unfair, and some people (on this forum) think that megabuck-winners are OK - because they worked "so hard" to get make it big. What conceit!

The job and compensation market is largely color blind, in spite of what you may think. Legislating what you believe to be better or correct is only distorting the market, which the market will counter act, one way or another.

See the breakdown in national income reported by the Census Bureau by race here:
View attachment 67204046

Only corrective government policy can change that unfair pattern of Income showing the two major ethnicities both earning much less than the national average. Which is why a decent Minimum Wage is absolutely indispensable in the country.

And it had better be sooner than later ...
_______________________________

[/SIZE]

You may believe that the federal minimum wage is also the most prevalent wage, but that would be in incorrect assumption.

Among those paid by the hour, 1.5 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.8 million had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 3.3 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 4.3 percent of all hourly paid workers.
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers, 2013 - BLS Reports

So a mere 4.3 percent of the entire workforce earns minimum wage (not including tips) or below.

So 95.7% of the workforce is earning above the federal minimum wage.
What's your problem with that? Do you really think that ever more government intervention is actually going to improve on that? :lamo

Face it. You are little more than a statist and / or a socialist, which to be expected, since you appear to live in France.

Mind you, unlike you, I'm not attempting to dictate to you how you and your nation should run it's economy. Just seems that you feel so privileged, so arrogant, so sure of yourself (unfounded), that the US should adopt your superior economic system. Born and raised here in the US, I don't think so.

 

[Lafayette]

I didn't say it would eliminate all live teachers. Under my plan it would assist them. I see the online university being used in brick and mortar schools. It will change the way a lot of live teachers teach. I do think for many people, much of their academic work could be strictly virtual university on steroids. And it will be much higher quality education, learned much faster, at a tiny fraction of the cost. At a typical brick and mortar live class, what you go to a class few times a week, hear a lecture, maybe a short classroom discussion, and then get homework. An online class you can watch a lecture designed

I get very weary when human interaction is described in terms of "efficiency".

Much of what you describe is very appealing, but at some point people have to work/live with/amongst one another to promote mutual understanding. The Internet is no substitute for real, live human-interaction between individuals, whether in the pursuit of learning or a common purpose (business or sport or community action).

The great woe of the Internet is that it brings people together without the human contact necessary to "bond" in a common-cause, whatever that purpose may be. Which is why people go to stadiums to watch together (what are very simple) sports events.

I think fundamentally the Internet should be kept at arm's length, and not replace human contact for bonding. It would not be good for society as a whole. People must feel a part of a whole. (And for all the effort since MLK, far too many blacks still live in black communities/ghettos, and only meet white counterparts (if at all) at work.)

We've been banding together for either mutual advancement or protection since we leaned to stand on our hind legs and exit the savannahs of Africa to populate the earth unto all its extremities. Why change that now? For what good or purpose? More effective "Education"?

No, I don't think so - such an efficiency leads only to more isolation/insulation amongst the species. Facebook has spawned more togetherness? Nope, not by a long-shot. It facilitates communication but not togetherness.

But, then, neither am I any sociologist ...

NB: This forum is an ideal example of the phenomenon of social-dysfunction. The lack of mutual and direct contact breeds animosity not togetherness in our species. It brings out both the best and the worst in us.
________________________

 

[laska]

I get very weary when human interaction is described in terms of "efficiency".

Much of what you describe is very appealing, but at some point people have to work/live with/amongst one another to promote mutual understanding. The Internet is no substitute for real, live human-interaction between individuals, whether in the pursuit of learning or a common purpose (business or sport or community action).

The great woe of the Internet is that it brings people together without the human contact necessary to "bond" in a common-cause, whatever that purpose may be. Which is why people go to stadiums to watch together (what are very simple) sports events.

I think fundamentally the Internet should be kept at arm's length, and not replace human contact for bonding. It would not be good for society as a whole. People must feel a part of a whole. (And for all the effort since MLK, far too many blacks still live in black communities/ghettos, and only meet white counterparts (if at all) at work.)

We've been banding together for either mutual advancement or protection since we leaned to stand on our hind legs and exit the savannahs of Africa to populate the earth unto all its extremities. Why change that now? For what good or purpose? More effective "Education"?

No, I don't think so - such an efficiency leads only to more isolation/insulation amongst the species. Facebook has spawned more togetherness? Nope, not by a long-shot. It facilitates communication but not togetherness.

But, then, neither am I any sociologist ...

NB: This forum is an ideal example of the phenomenon of social-dysfunction. The lack of mutual and direct contact breeds animosity not togetherness in our species. It brings out both the best and the worst in us.
________________________

What's the difference between a book and an interactive course on the computer as far as social aspects. Are you against books because it limits social interaction while reading. What about homework, most of the time solo pursuit. How Stuff Works on steroids is bad but sitting at a desk shutting up listening to a lecture by a live teacher is social? And virtual courses can be very interactive. For example video game style interactive courses can have entire live classrooms working together to solve problems, etc. I know many social butterflies that enjoy Netflix. To the extreme yeah Netflix could be anti-social but to balanced individuals it is not the end of civilization.

 

[Lafayette]

LEARN MORE AND THUS EARN MORE

What's the difference between a book and an interactive course on the computer as far as social aspects. Are you against books because it limits social interaction while reading. What about homework, most of the time solo pursuit.

I have nothing against "books", meaning the written word, as regards Learning. One can actually learn from this debate-forum as well. Which, I like to think, is the reason that most of us are here.

But "living-life" is something on a much higher scale of complexity, and far more difficult to assimilate successfully. Thus, I insist upon the fact that our inter-personal relations are more important towards making "fact out of theory". Inter-personal relations are direct one-on-one, because as humans we interact with one another and speaking is the path we employ. (For the good as well as the not-so-good outcomes.)

Which is also probably why our racial-relations have not improved sufficiently, or the blacks would not be so riled with their lot-in-life and demonstrate it so readily. (Yes, "Black Lives Matter!", as do all lives.)

Do you see Asian ethnicities demonstrating in the streets for "change"? No. And why? Because they earn damn fine salaries! Why? Because they get tertiary-educations for the most part, which other ethnicities do not as prominently. (See that explained better here: Fast Facts, NCES*)

(As regards High-School dropouts, the rates also are different according to ethnicity. Check-out the same source for those numbers, the NCES.)

MY POINT

If I propose Federally-funded tertiary-education for those who cannot afford it, my reason is very clear: Those needing it most must be afforded the possibility to learn more and thus earn more.

And if the Internet can help, it should be employed to do so. But, it is by no means the "Magic Key" that opens all doors in Human Relations.

That's all I am saying ...

*NCES = National Center for Education Statistics
______________________